Blogs Cliopatria Red Sox Diary

Jul 12, 2004

Red Sox Diary

by Cliopatria

Since a number of you have written to ask, and since the most commented-on post at Rebunk so far has been my piece on Pedro Martinez, I thought that some of you might be interested in knowing that my daily posts to"Bleeding Red: A Red Sox Fan's Diary" are now being posted at Ephblog, which is hosted by my alma mater, Williams College. Eventually the Sox are going to win it all this year, and this will become a book. But for now, I thank David Kane, who asked me if I would post my entries there, and all the indulgent folks at Ephblog and I encourage you all to check it out. I'll also try to have this listed in our blogroll to the right of the page. Please note that this is part of a larger blog, so if my entries are not at the top, scroll down and you'll find them. The rest of the posts are worth reading, however.)

GO SOX!!!!

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Derek Charles Catsam - 7/27/2004

Sounds good. It's shocking, but in my quest to see a game at every major league stadium, in the years I lived in Ohio I never managed to make it up to the Jake. But it'll happen.
dc

Jesse David Lamovsky - 7/27/2004

Thanks, Derek, and my compliments on Rebunk. As a buddy of mine says, it's "bringing in heads", which must mean you and Tom are doing all right!

I'll let things sort themselves out over time, but if I have to compare, I'd say I'm somewhat to your right on things like civil rights; a little to your left on Israel (though we're in full agreement on the big questions about Israel, its right of existence, etc.). We've "thrown down" before on certain issues, and no doubt we will again. But you're on for those beers. You'll find me in the bleachers at Jacobs Field, about ten rows in front of the guy with the drum, already a few pops in.

Jesse

Derek Charles Catsam - 7/23/2004

Jesse --
Agreed. We are absolutely going to have to find a way to meet up over beers, preferably with Tom, in Ohio at some point (I am assuming that is where you are these days?). I guess I'll just have to write a post on sports again soon just to get this going all over again.
By the way -- we've agreed ardently about a lot of political things in the past. We're on the same page on Israel and a few otjher things. It's nice to have you aboard.
dc

Jesse David Lamovsky - 7/22/2004

Derek-

We've taken this as far as it's going to go. Yes, there is something between the Red Sox and the Yankees that doesn't exist between the Yankees and any other team. I never denied that. I'm just not sure, given the level of dominance that the Yankees have exercised over the American League since 1921, that any team, even Boston, can honestly claim to be their rival, since, to me at least, the word "rivalry" denotes a level of equality between the rivals. The Red Sox have been one of the better franchises in baseball, especially since 1967, but they aren't at the level of the Yankees. Nobody is. That's all I'm really trying to say.

Jesse

Derek Charles Catsam - 7/19/2004

None of this changes the fact that there is a rivalry. It is demonstrable. It is palpable. And you wouldn't be in a position to try lamely to argue against it if it did not exist. Further, not for nothing, but in lots of years the Sox have beaten the yankees, if not in series then by defeating them over the course of a oong season. We do have some AL pennants, after all . . .

Jesse David Lamovsky - 7/18/2004

Derek, I may be all those things and more, but even a moron like me knows a rivalry doesn't consist of one team beating the other pretty much non-stop for eighty years. No matter how "competitive" the perennial loser is. And I don't worry too much about my self-esteem- it was shot the minute I first faced Little League pitching. As for actual evidence, do I really have to cite 1949, 1978, 1999, 2003, and so on? It's been done, Derek. Done to death.

Let's see the Bosox beat the Yankees in something meaningful. Just once. Ain't hard- the Angels did it. Then all of us in fly-over country will drop down and genuflect to this wonderful Red Sox-Yankees rivalry, just like Fox, ESPN, and all you naval-gazing Red Sox fans want us to. Now, I've got to go. Got a baseball team to watch. You might know them- they beat the Yankees in a playoff series once. Cheers!

Jesse

Derek Charles Catsam - 7/17/2004

I have to say, I think it might be easier if I spoke to someone in your family who had not been dropped on their head when they were a child. So what I am getting here is that the Yankees and Red Sox both acknowledge that it is a rivalry, that the ratings go up when they play, that the media pays attention, and that everything is more heated, and yet you still maintain that it is somehow not a rivalry? Again, every major player in this drama acknowledges that games between the two teams matters more than other games, but because Jesse David Lomasky (and the crowd, in unison, including Derek Jeter and A-Rod, goes "Who?") doesn't think that it is, these sloppy matters of fact --Higher tv ratings! More newspapers sold! More journalists at the games! Bigger crowds! More column inches in the New York Newspapers -- for the retarded folks in the crowd, we'll repeat this one -- i-n t-h-e N-e-w Y-o-r-k N-e-w-s-p-a-p-e-r-s! -- these things don't matter!
Nope, ideas independent of actual evidence. This is what we value! It's about self esteem, and our opinions, no matter how dumb and ill informed, they count for as much as those of people who aren't complete morons? For those of you who are saying that the Red Sox and Yankees have not been competitive over the last six decades, the short bus is waiting outside. Please, clean up your pools of spittle on the way out. Now could we clear space so that the people without the birth defects can breathe the clean air? Thanks.
dc

Jesse David Lamovsky - 7/16/2004

Derek-

So the Yankees say there's a rivalry. And so does Linda Cohn, so does Joe Buck, and so do you. And yes, they do jack things up when they play, there's no doubt about that. But just because both teams get up to play each other, and the ratings go up, and all that good stuff, that doesn't make it a rivalry, because in a real rivalry, one team doesn't dominate the other to this degree. In a real rivalry, you throw the score and the standings out. The Giants and the Dodgers have a real rivalry- they've mutually screwed each other out of I don't even know how many pennants for a century. Every time the Yankees and the Red Sox have played in a meaningful situation- with a pennant or a division championship on the line- since 1904, the Yankees have won. Every time.

Rivalries are tit for tat. Michigan and Ohio State- tit for tat. Dodgers and Giants- tit for tat. Redskins and Cowboys- Tit for tat. The symbiosis between the Yankees and the Red Sox is a little more twisted. You've got one team that has pretty much always had it over on the other in every possible way for 84 years. Trades, pennants, head-to-head on the field, whatever. If one guy beats the hell out of another guy time after time, sorry, that's not a rivalry, no matter how many times the loser comes gamely out to fight again, no matter how excited people get that this might be the time he actually wins (or maybe people are just excited to see how the Red Sox are going to piss it away this time- don't underestimate the machosism involved in this "rivalry"). Maybe the Red Sox ought to actually beat the Yankees in a game that matters. Then it'll be a rivalry, okay? Until then, the Red Sox are just like every other team in the AL that has gotten its tail whipped by New York over and over. They just cry about it a LOT more than the rest of us.

Derek Charles Catsam - 7/16/2004

Thanks to everybody who has posted here. It does reaffirm that Rebunk will be a place where sports fit into our discussions as well as politics and history, as at least two of us are enormous and passionate sports fans who also write about sports in various ways. I do hope that the originial gist of this post (which so far has gotten forty-something comments despite what I would have thought was the handicap of not actually saying anything) is not lost, which is that my daily diaries are available at www.ephblog.com, and I do hope you will all take a look at them.
Tom and I promise that sports will be a regular part of Rebunk as we progress. We also hope that those of you who are most engaged with the sports topics still read the other stuff.

At the risk of sounding treacly, Rebunk is becoming what it is because of our readers. Blogs can be echo chambers. But in a very short amount of time, we have become a place where people come, argue, talk, shout at each other, and I hope have at least some fun. We want to grow Rebunk, to make it something really good, and our readers are partners in that endeavor. We want it to be like our friendships, which has involved a lot of shouting and arguing and telling each other we were full of what my Romanian grandfather would have called "scata." Actually, my Romanian Grandfather spoke salty English. What he'd have actually said was "full of shit." But that did not seem dignified. God, I loved my Grandfather. We want Rebunk to be the place you come, have a beer, and then get really pissed off or provoked or annoyed or intrigued. Like Thanksgiving with the family. But, you know, fun. So keep tuning in. Know that when one of us comes across as a prick, we probably are not, but we are challenging you, as we have challenged each other. Civility may be overstated in a world where people priviledge self-esteem over self worth, so what we want is a bit more of a wild west form of civility with an edge, a code in which bullshit is called, punches are thrown, and it all ends with a beer. Or someone being shot. I guess what I am trying to say is, Thank You.

dc

Derek Charles Catsam - 7/16/2004

Nope, sorry. the Yankees themselves, and especially New York always acknowledge the rival status. Everybody hates the Yankees, but look at the New York papers during a red Sox series. Listen to what the players say. Look at national media coverage, lookmat tv ratings when they play. Look at the history, beyond the Yankees success, to the intensity of it all. Try yet again to dismiss this as a creation of a Red Sox Nation arrogance, but the rivalry is real, as anyone who has ever been to Yankee Stadium for a Red Sox series or else any other series in the Stadium well knows. Sorry, but no one comes close to the Red Sox-Yankees as a rivalry, and while some New Yorkers can pretend it is not true, it is. Nice try, though. Bullshit, but a nice try.
dc

Jesse David Lamovsky - 7/16/2004

Derek-

Actually, I have been to a White Sox game- at both old Comiskey and new Comiskey. And you're right- their fans aren't the best in the world, and their ballpark, bland, colorless, and inconveniently located in a war-zone area of South Chicago, indeed sucks (though if you like running a gauntlet of aggressive panhandlers before you get to the gate, Comiskey's your spot). So your points are well-founded.

I still don't understand all this Red Sox-Yankee rivalry talk, though. No disrespect to the Red Sox, but the Yankees are nobody's archrival, and everybody's at the same time. The Yanks have broken pretty much every team's heart at some point or another during the last eighty years, particularly, aside from the Red Sox, the Dodgers and Indians in the '50s, and the Royals in the '70s. With all respect, it's just a tad arrogant of the so-called "Red Sox Nation" to bestow "Yankee archrival" status upon themselves. That status should be reserved for every single team in both leagues.

Derek Charles Catsam - 7/16/2004

Obviously lots of Pedro talk after he took the three games of before the ASB to go to the Dominican and then they still did not give him the start yesterday, when DLowe went out and took 100 pitches to get through the 4th -- though he was at a shutout up to that point. I think they are handling him with kid gloves. I think they like the idea of a bit of a midseason respite. I think that they hope that a happy Pedro is a good Pedro. I think that they trusted his judgment. Beyond that, I'm not sure. I'd have liked to have seen him start last night, to be sure, but I'm going to try my best to keep my apoplexy about last night's game down to a dull, painful throb.
dc

Richard Henry Morgan - 7/16/2004

... what's up with Pedro? If somebody doesn't light a match under his six, he might end up sitting at the right hand of Curt.

Derek Charles Catsam - 7/15/2004

Richard --
Especially as the Sox begin to hit as well as pitch. it takes a lot of pressure off of Arroyo and lowe if they get run production behind them. lowe has shown in the past what he can do, and Wakefield continues to be underrated. And I do think the Yanks will fall to earth and that it will become a race, one I think we can win given pitching (theirs is, as you say, an achilles heel).
in any case, anyone who follows my diary will see the levels of angst and ecstasy we Sox fans put ourselves through.
dc

Derek Charles Catsam - 7/15/2004

Yes. See, the list is piling up, and as it does, Ryan drops.
i do agree that there are milestones, for better or worse, that pitchers have to meet. But i also think that if we can consider changing the milestones, adjusting them upwards, in a hitter's era (ie how is it possible that with his numbers Palmeiro won't make the HoF? Yet some folks are seriously talking about that.) we obviously have to adjust downward for pitchers. And if we are going to adjust downward current hitters, what about adjusting downward pitchers from 1880-1920 or so? it's a dangerous and silly prcedent in any case. people suddenly want to limit the HoF as if they don't realize that it should continue to increase at the same rate, and that guys like palmeiro have always gotten in. i like Bob Ryan's (and others -- he surely cribbed it from someone else) idea of a three tier HoF with the first tier the elites -- Babe, Williams, mays, Aaron, etc -- a second tier of greats but not quite that high, and then a third tier for the Don Suttons, Phil Rizuttos, etc. That lower tier could be opened up a bit, but the other levels need to be locked pretty tight. If nothing else, it is fun as a parlor game.
dc

Ben H. Severance - 7/15/2004

Hell, why not include "Pete" Alexander, Dizzy Dean, and Early Wynn? Dazzy Vance is another obscure but outstanding oldie. Anyway, my sarcasm about Boston and my inflated defense of Ryan aside, I do agree that Pedro has had some awesome years, and currently appears to be having at the very least a pretty solid season. If he can finish his career with around 250 wins, 3,500 Ks (the Walter Johnson standard), and keep his ERA under 3.00, then his name should certainly be mentioned when fans talk about the very best pitchers of all time. And barring an injury, there is no reason Pedro can't achieve these milestones. A fabulous world series performance would be icing on the cake. Until then, Ryan's got the post-season edge, having pitched brilliant relief in the '69 series!

Richard Henry Morgan - 7/15/2004

The BoSox just might win it this year. Stranger things have happened. Among the unlikely events that need to happen is Pedro staying healthy, or at least strong -- that is, be able to go more than six innings deep in the playoffs. It could happen. Curt is a great pitcher too. I don't think the Yankees have the pitching they need. They went the way of Cleveland -- load up on a few bats on the assumption that that replaces pitching. It didn't work for the Indians, and it didn't work for the BoSox last year.

Derek Charles Catsam - 7/15/2004

Right, but in toto, Ryan is not a top ten guy. He struck out a lot of guys in games he lost 9-7 and walked six.
Chris, I respectfully dissent on Pedro. His career totals are not yet there, but it seems tough to criticize a guy in medias res when his numbers on a per game, per season basis are so dominating. If he can stay healthy, obviously not a small question, he'll be right there in the end, and I'd say that in his absolute God heyday, say 1999-2001, only Koufax and Gibson even belong in the conversation. I am an idiot for not including Walter Johnson on my top ten list, but that just means one more guy ahead of Ryan, and one mpore when my brainfart leaving out Whitey Ford comes in. I obviosuly need my Bill James Historical baseball Abstract (note to Mr. James -- this sort of high profile product placement usually gets one oodles of free stuff. I'm just sayin' . . .).
dc

Ben H. Severance - 7/15/2004

So, I'm left alone with Ryan. Which makes your question, "Who is smoking what here?" all the more appropriate. I'll tell you whose smoking what, Ryan's smoking 5,700 batters, baby. That's what I'm tawking about, ya know whadda mean? Baseball is a great sport where we can all bullshit each other about who's the best. By the way, I was there when Mike Boddicker's foshball cut down 14 Chisox in 1983. A very impressive performance by a guy I was sure was heading for greatness. Then he went to Boston!

chris l pettit - 7/15/2004

actually I was arguing against Ryan and am in full agreement with you Derek...good call on Feller by the way.

Pedro and Seaver are not in the group...Pedro in a one year scenario maybe...

and thanks for the correction...my mistake on the year...

CP

Derek Charles Catsam - 7/15/2004

Yeah, let's do away with the "relentless self promotion." Ever been to a White Sox game? Their fans suck. Their ballpark sucks. They play in one of the three largest cities in America. And they are being overwhelmed by Boston because of self promotion? No, you had it right the first time -- the Red Sox are almost always good. Often are very good. Plus up to when they won that last World Title, they were hands down the best team in baseball history. that makes what followed especially vexing. The Red Sox inspire support because of the perceived tragedy, and because they are so often good, with a history of great, great players. The White Sox are a distant second fiddle in their own city.
dc

Jesse David Lamovsky - 7/15/2004

Sorry to bring it up (not really). I simply can't wrap my mind around a screen pass on your own twelve-yard line with ten seconds left in the half. Did Sam Wyche magically take over Gibbs's body for that instant? And I don't like to think about that second quarter against Denver- I just think about how the 'Skins WOULDN'T have scored 35 points in a quarter against Hanford Dixon, Frank Minnifield, et al...

To answer my own question about the White Sox, I guess that has to do with the amount of times the South Siders have come close to a World Championship since 1917, as opposed to the Red Sox since 1918. There are a lot more near-misses for Boston. That, and the relentless self-promotion of "Red Sox Nation", could account for the disparity in the misery index between the Crimson Hose and the Pale Hose (love those old Sporting News terms).

Derek Charles Catsam - 7/14/2004

As I've said -- I'll take my chances with the letdown. It's not going to happen. But I'll take my chances.
dc

Derek Charles Catsam - 7/14/2004

Flame does not make the difference. Knowing how to use flame does. Knowing how to master other pitches does. Certainly averaging more than one more win a season than losses does. (Yes, yes, I know, wins are the most contingent of all stats. yet great pitchers accumulate them, which cannot be a coincidence). Again, Ryan was great. but not as great as his supporters would have you believe.
dc

Ben H. Severance - 7/14/2004

Fascist? Bizarre use of the term. I suppose ground outs are socialists, working hard for nothing. And flyouts are Democrats, big talk but no results. Pop ups, well those have to be POPulists. Foul outs are the Greens, never quite on the playing field. And lineouts are, I don't know, fundamentalist Republicans who attack things head-on but come to an abrupt halt by a society not willing to take their gas?

Anyway, finesse pitchers are fine: Greg Maddux, Catfish Hunter, Jim Palmer, Robin Roberts. But the great ones, including all of the ones that have been talked about here, have flame on their pitches. In the end, its their heat that makes the difference. Especially for relievers. Who wants a finesse man for a stopper with the bases loaded and no outs? You want someone who can fan the first guy at the very least--a strikeout means no one runs. Grounders move runners. Fly outs score the man on third. The most famous baseball poem ends, "Mighty Casey has just struck out." How ruinous if it had ended, "Mighty Casey has just chopped a slow dribbler to second and ... oops, the fielder bobbled it. Error, Mudville has got to be happy that the finesse pitcher couldn't smoke it by their big boy."

David Lion Salmanson - 7/14/2004

When the Mets won in 1969, piece of the field ended up in our backyard. My brothers can still point to it and plan to dig it up if my Mother ever moves. I got my own run of futility starting to follow the Amazings around 1974. Things were fun in 86 but when the Mets stayed good for a while, they got much less interesting and the rooting much less fun. Plus tickets got expensive. Have solved the problem by rooting for the Phillies. To listen to sports radio around here, you'd think the Phils were 20 games out. And that's the people who know the game!

David Lion Salmanson - 7/14/2004

to quote Crash Davis "strike outs are fascist." An overrated stat that priviliges power pitchers over finesse guys.

Derek Charles Catsam - 7/14/2004

serious quirks on HNN's end caused me to triple post. That or else i am just that adamant.
dc

Derek Charles Catsam - 7/14/2004

Guidry, in his brief heyday, was a killer, no doubt (though anyone who believes he deserved the MVP over Rice ought to be forced to have their car die on them on the Cross Bronx Expressway). But he was no Pedro.
Agreed, of course, that Koufax was a bad, bad man, and the tragedy of his arthritic arm is one of the big "what ifs" in all of baseball history.
How about Manny and Ortiz last night at the All Star Game? Those Sox have sock!!! (Yes, I am using that line in my diary entry post-All Star game. pathetic, eh?)
dc

Derek Charles Catsam - 7/14/2004

Ben H. Severance - 7/14/2004

An excellent point regarding Pedro's ERA in an age of offense. That's a zinger I have no rebuttal for. As for the 1960s Dodgers, I didn't mean to say the team sucked, only that its offensive numbers paled in comparison to say the homerun rich Twins, whom Koufax blanked twice in the 1965 series. Anyway, I'll let you cool off on the Pedro issue. He is a fine pitcher, reminiscent of Ron Guidry at his best (sorry, another Yankee!).

Derek Charles Catsam - 7/14/2004

Look, I'm not smoking anything. Look at my argument above with actual facts and evidence and you'll see that a guy with an average season of 13-12 and ERA of 3.20 is simply not one of the top ten in the game's history. Overwhelming striekout totals simply does not overcome everything else. gain -- look at Pedros numbers. Take away everything else, and look at the numbers. No way he does not make more top 10 lists than he has, and as his career progresses and he piles up numbers it will only get better.
Grove, Gibson, Mathewson, Cy Young, Clemens, Koufax, Pedro, Feller, Seaver, and Carlton. No way, no how does Ryan get placed above a single one of those. No way. Not even close. If he stars for your all time team, I know someone whose all time team is finishing at the bottom of the fantasy ratings. You can say dopey things like "finally someone looks at the entirety . . ." blah blah blah. I looked at the entirety of his career. Other than longevity (certainly laudable; not determinative) and strikeouts (obviously his main claim to greatness, along with the no hitters) Ryan does not even belong in this group.
dc

Derek Charles Catsam - 7/14/2004

Look, I've covered the Koufax-Pedro argument elsewhere. Koufax was great. I'd say Pedro has been better. Those Dodger teams that you say sucked in fact did not. I believe, for example, there was a World series in there. And Pedro's numbers came in this offensive era, which is why ERA+ is so significant. As for Nolan's strikeout totals, they are his biggest saving grace. And yes, no one will match them. But strikeouts alone do not make one truly great. In any case, I've argued about the relative greatness -- ie, among the greatest of the great Nolan and Ripken do not belong. That Nolan wins in striekoutts does not change the fact that he strikes out fewer per season than Pedro, never mind the other statistics (13-12) where Pedro romps.
Mae culpa on the Ripken MVPs. I forgot that he won two MVPs, not one, though that 1991 one is a head scratcher.

dc

Ben H. Severance - 7/14/2004

Please don't bring up Gibbs' Super Bowl blunder. Let's instead return to the second quarter against the Broncos. I am hopeful that Gibbs will get the Skins back on track. It will be nice to once again see teams tremble when they play Washington. And its time to pulverize those damnable Cowboys!

Good point about the Chisox. One could also mention the Expos or Astros or Mariners or Rangers. Granted those teams haven't been around as long, but no one dwells on their not having won it all. Hell, Cleveland has its own bad luck tradition, too. So, boo hoo for the Bosox.

Ben H. Severance - 7/14/2004

Yes! Someone who can look at the whole history of the game and see Ryan for the giant he truly is. Your mention of Grove and Gibson are excellent choices, too.

The White Sox have never excited me all that much, at least not since the days of the great Ron Kittle (a joke). The '80s sure had a bunch of slugging duds: Kittle, Gorman Thomas, Rob Deer, Steve Balboni, Dave Kingman. Anyway, Kid Gleason's club was one of the best, and while everyone looks at 1919, they overlook the even more impressive 1920 team that posted four 20-game-winners. (Landis was right to break it all up, but that racist SOB inhibited integration for at least a decade.)

As for a dream team, the only positions I've ever been adamant about are firstbase, which simply must go to Lou Gehrig, the greatest ballplayer of all time, and the starting pitcher--Nolan Ryan. Other than those, all other positions are debatable. Big Mac is out for the same steroids charge you put on Bonds, who I no longer think used them. By the way, I think Traynor was a thirdbaseman. And the Chisox went to the series in 1959.

Anyway, good to talk to you again, Chris. Baseball is more fun than arguing over geopolitical issues anyway.

Ben

Ben H. Severance - 7/14/2004

The fulmination continues. I've been obliterated by your withering barrage of machine-gun fire statistics.

Oil Can Boyd was indeed an attempt to be clever; perhaps I was too Dennis Miller like with that one. I also wanted to mention an obscure Bosox pitcher, but then with the exception of Clemens, when he pitched for you, Boston has never really had a great pitcher (and I'm not counting one-year wonders like Lonberg in '67 and Eck in '78). Tiant comes close for sheer grit.

I make the Ripken-Nomar comparison just to get the diehards going again. Of course Nomar is the more lethal player at the plate, particularly when looking at Ripken's final years. (By the way, Ripken won two, not just one, MVP awards.) And I agree that the pursuit of Gehrig hurt both the O's and Ripken. Hank Aaron made a significant point during an interview at the All-star game that the key to his later success was the frequent rest he took--play a few games and then take one off, and so forth. Ripken's back pain required more rest.

Anyway, I noticed you consider a ninety RBI season average. True for today, and for the era before the mid-1960s, but as a stat-freak kid whose best memories of baseball come from the '70s and '80s, a 90 RBI season was pretty good back then. Hell, 25 homers made you a power hitter. Now, you have to blast 40 before anyone takes notice and you have to drive in at least 120 to be considered productive. All of this makes many fair comparisons impossible.

Back to Nolan. I don't think you have fully digested the incredible strikeout total. Clemens, as great as his career is, would still have to put together five more solid 200+ strikeouts seasons to have a chance of breaking Ryan's record. Throwing 5,700 Ks is comparable clubbing 800 homeruns. It is a mind-boggling total. And Koufax is far superior to Pedro. You forget that the Dodgers of the 1960s sucked offensively. More often than Pedro, Sandy had to make one or two runs last, a tough task. And 27 wins in your farewell season, come on!

But enough for now,

P.S. Bucky Dent, Bill Buckner, Aaron Boone

chris l pettit - 7/14/2004

Hey Buddy...

I like this topic, as I played a little ball in both high school and for two years at UCF until major knee surgery (think Mantle and the drain cover) ended my pitching days. I guess the asshole baseball player admission probably explains me a bit more, huh?

Anyway...you wanted a White Sox fan? Well...here you go...south sider all the way. Tough as I am the only one in a family of Cubbies (ugh). The Cubs never had to suffer through anyone half as bad as Charles Comiskey...the real cause of the Black Sox scandal. And on the all could have been team, Shoeless Joe gets a mention in the outfield, possibly the greatest left fielder of all time (Barry is really good, yes, but is on roids and Shoeless Joe hit like Barry with the same hand eye coordination, high average, etc, in a dead ball era...so other than the extra oomph Barry gets from the roids, Shoeless Joe has got him beat...especially defensively) and yes he was innocent due to ignorance (my own bias).

Nolan Ryan?!?! Who is smoking what here? Derek, I am not sure of the Pedro pick, although at his prime and given one year, him, Steve Carlton, or Koufax gets the prize. THat being said, only Koufax makes the top five out of those three and Ryan.

Bob Gibson, Walter Johnson, Lefty Grove, Koufax, Clemens gets honourable mention over Ryan even though I can't stand him. Gotta give Randy Johnson a nod. Maddux? would love to as he was the guy I most emulated coming up, but if you are going to include a control and junk guy, Christy Matthewson has to be the pick. As you can see I tend to be an old time fan as opposed to juiced balls, steroids and whatnot.

The Sox that actually have a shot at winning the Series are the White Sox once everyone gets healthy. Buerhle, Loaiza, Schowenwiess, Garcia, Garland versus Pedro, Schilling, Wakefield, Lowe (ugh) and whoever goes #5...call it a wash, but I'll take the White Sox. The lineup is also about equal, maybe a bit more towards the White Sox when everyone is healthy. The WS definitely field better, although that is not saying much with Jose Valentin at shortstop, but his competition is pretty bad right now...I love what the Sports Guy has to say on Nomar...he is done.

Gimme the Big Hurt, Magglio, Carlos Lee, Crede, Konerko, Juan Pierre leading off and stealing bases (something Boston does not have) and the intangibles that is Ozzie Guillen (big edge for the WS in the managing department) over Boston any day.

by the way...

third base would have to be Mike Schmidt
shortstop Honus Wagner
as much as I love Fisk I would have to give it to Bench behind the plate unless we include Negro leagues and then it is Josh Gibson hands down no argument
First and Second as well as the outfield are tough...Big Mac? Foxx? Hank Greenberg? Pie Traynor? Pee Wee Reese? Joe Morgan? Does Ryno get a vote for the suffering Cubs fans? Where does Teddy Ballgame fit in with Mays, Clemente, the Babe, Joltin Joe, Mantle, the Duke...how many outfielders do I get?

end of the year...

Yankees, White Sox, A's (once they trade Zito), Red Sox (WC)
Cards, Giants, Phils (I hate them...go Fish), Cubs (wildcard)

White Sox or Red Sox in the Series against the Cubs

Dream scenario...oh well

CP
http://www.wicper.org

By the way DC...1917 for me...so I don't want to hear it...and we have only reached the Series in 1954 since then...

Jesse David Lamovsky - 7/14/2004

I'd have to posit, merely as an outside observer (of course), that Cubs fans seem to have more of a corner on optimism than Red Sox fans. Bosox fans always seem to be at least expecting the other shoe to drop. But every time the Cubs make a run in the playoffs, have a chance to get to the World Series, their fans seem certain that, whatever the year ('69, '84, last season), this is the year the Cubbies get off the schneid. Whereas, with the Red Sox, it never seems to be that certain. Something awful, inexplicable, will happen to screw everything up. It does seem that Red Sox fans have turned their suffering into an art form, complete with somber narration from Denis Leary, Mike "The Rick" O'Malley, Ben Affleck, etc.

Two things I really don't get about the whole Red Sox thing. Why is it that no one talks about the White Sox in the same manner as the Cubs and Red Sox? They last won a World Series in 1917. They haven't been in one since 1959. I wouldn't care if the White Sox never played in another World Series, but it does seem odd that there's an opera's worth of tragedy attached to the Red Sox, while the White Sox are just some team that sucks and never wins anything. Also, where do certain media types get off calling the Red Sox and the Yankees "rivals"? The Red Sox haven't won a meaningful game from the Yankees since 1904. What kind of rivalry is that? Kansas City has a better rivalry with New York. So do the Indians, for that matter. Like what Martina Hingis said about her "rivalry" with Anna Kournikova: doesn't the other person have to win sometimes?

Mr. Severance- Bill Kilmer! You've got to love a quarterback with a beer gut. And the 'Skins have Joe Gibbs back, too. He did make the single worst play-call ever in a Super Bowl, but the man could coach, and probably still can.

Greg Robinson - 7/14/2004

Who said I was a republican?

Derek Charles Catsam - 7/14/2004

If you are so freaking retarded as to not understand that the uniform comment was a joke, then please, go to the blog http://www.notsosmartpeoplebabbling.com. Thank you.
Yes, very hapy to see Clemens get shelled, and with a two run zinger from Manny.
Yes, as the guy actually writing a book on the Red Sox, I am well aware of where they are in the standings. As the guy with 31 years of experience yadda yadda yadda, you may well be aware that this in only the All Star break, and that in a short series, much can happen. You do realize theat we are not talking about the Texas League, where half-season standings count for a playoff slot, right?
Proud to be compared with the only President to leave office in abject shame? Good for you. I guess.
You do realize that being a Republican does not mean you have to stand full fledged behind all of them, right? You do realize that nixon had some integrity issues?
dc

Greg Robinson - 7/14/2004

Any reference to Nixon is a compliment, so I thank you. However, for the record, the title of this post is merely a statement of fact. Asserting that I have such a shallow understanding of the game as to be only entertained by the design and colors of the uniforms is an insult. My argument is based on 31 years of baseball observation; your mudpie as you call it, is an attempt to ruffle my feathers and take attention away from the fact that, as the title says, the Red Sox are 7 games out of first place at the very moment that you are arguing they will win the World Series.

More importantly, are you enjoying the shellacking of Roger Clemens as much as I am? I would guess yes. Schmidt should have been the starter. All Clemens start has proven is that his early success with the Astros is simply because the National league hasn't acclimated to his pitches yet. Look what players who are familiar with him do with his offerings.

By the way, we call it the reverse jinx, as in whatever I want to happen on my fantasy team, the opposite will. I do the opposite as you: I pick no Giants because I know that every one of them will end the season in a full-body cast if I do. I do pick some Dodgers though (fantasy leagues turn you into a shell of a fan, unfortunately) and they inevitably do poorly, which is nice.

Derek Charles Catsam - 7/14/2004

Well, my fantasy team enjoys spiting me as well. I was dumb enoiugh to take several red Sox so that their failures in the field are compunded on my fantasy team. But I refused to take yankees, as I always do.
As for inevitability, you took the first shots (let's note the very title of the conversation we are using right now). Don't then whine when it comes back at you and then claim that someone else threw the first mud pie. You then argued inevitability. Compounding ypour mudslinging with daffy arguments then trying to do a bait and switch is impressive in its Nixonian way, I suppose.
dc

Greg Robinson - 7/14/2004

Ahh yes, the inevitability of Derek turning the argument away from the issue at hand and into a game of mudslinging. Call me what you will but the predictability of Boston's self-destruction every year is something that defies the otherwise fascinating unpredictability of the rest of the sports world. The only reason anyone pays attention to the Red Sox outside of New England is because of their predictable failure to win. History is unpredictable yes but there is something to be said, as anyone who has played and/or coached can attest, for tradition. Chris Webber has proved himself to be a consistent choker in clutch situations, Michael Jordan a consistent winner when his back was against the wall; the Giants are quickly attaining a similar choker status and the Red Sox, as an organization, do not know what it takes to win. Until they do it, it's hard to argue otherwise. An astute fan of the game could also argue that the 6 wins the Red Sox picked up against the evil empire this year came in April as the Yankees were stuggling to gel and play as a team. The recent sweep of the Red Sox by the Yankees came in June/July and could be much more indicative of each teams true character. 7 games out. Insurmountable? Of course not. But for Sox fans certainly cause for alarm and for historians and fans the appearance of business as usual in Boston.

You should really thank me because as I write this the baseball Gods are re-aligining the post-season and the Red Sox will now win it all just to spite me. Trust me, it happens every day in my fantasy league.

Derek Charles Catsam - 7/13/2004

Ahh, yes, the inevitability thesis. Of course it does not work that way, as a history teacher ought to know, but that's ok. I like spoorts for its wonder and unpredictability. Apparently you like them because of the pretty uniforms, because no real fan would find outcomes inevitable.

Greg Robinson - 7/13/2004

Someone paying attention to baseball for the last 8 decades would know that the Red Sox find a way to lose every year. Wildcards aren't decided in July either, and I don't believe (call me crazy but I'm going to side with history on this one) the Red Sox have what it takes.

Derek Charles Catsam - 7/13/2004

Ben --
Oil Can Boyd? Um, I guess that was supposed to be clever.
First off, Ripken: A discerning reader will note that I did not compare Nomar and Ripken, and Nomar has never, ever complained about his status vis a vis Jeter. Never. But if Ripken-Nomar is the ground you want to contest, so be it.
Among Hall of Famers both Ripken and Ryan are overrated. Both are spoken of among the all time greats. They are not. Ripken's streak was worthy, but overstated -- he was hurting the Orioles for a good portion of the last five years of the streak, minimum. Any player should be able to be sit down when he scuffles. But apparently not Ripken, because of that freaking streak. Yet look at his career numbers. Career OPS: .787. BA: .276. Average 162 game rbi: 91. Average 162 game home runs: 23. Good player. One of the all time greats? Nope. OK, so you invoked Nomar. Let's take a look. Hmmmm. OPS: .925 (that's .138 more, Sparky). BA: .323 (that's 47 points higher, Killer). Per 162 games: RBI -- 117. HR -- 30 (26 more rbi per season and 7 home runs per season, respectively, Cowboy). But he has that MVP! Well, so does Zoillo Versailles. But Ripken had to have been a superior fielder! Good point. Ripken: .979. Errors per season: 14. Nomar: Field % -- .969. Errors per season -- 16. However, Nomar has a higher range factor, and these numbers are not that far apart, compared with the asskicking Nomar does on offense.
Now to Nolan Ryan. Yes, Pedro, easily. Pedro certainly ranks higher than Johnson and Maddux. Look at the most telling numbers -- era and especially era+ where Pedro, by a significant %, is the best ever. I made an argument in a post a while back (cited in the post above) that Pedro is maybe the greatest ever. Certainly that includes Ryan. But ok, obviously Ryan gets longevity, and if Pedro falters now we'll have a debate (any comparison between Pedro and Koufax, another short career guy stats wise, Pedro wins. But that's for another time). So let's look at per season totals again --
Pedro: 17-7, 4CG, 219 IP, ERA 2.58, era+ 174, Ks -- 256
Ryan: 13-12 (!!!) 9CG, 231.7 IP, ERA 3.19, era+ 112, 245 K.
So your guy pitches more complete games, and he gives a dozen more innings. Which makes Pedro kicking Nolan’s ass in actual substantial stats all the more awesome. 4 more wins and 5 fewer losses. An ERA .61 lower. An ERA+ 62 lower (in other words, his dominance over the league is off the charts compared to Ryan’s). Oh, and I believe the strikeout king actually loses the 162 game strikeout race by 11.
I won’t list the 10-20 pitchers better than Ryan yet, but it won’t take too much of a sweat. In any case, case made: Ripken and Ryan, overrated.
dc

Ben H. Severance - 7/13/2004

No, Oil Can Boyd is the most overrated. And why insult Ripken? I'll take his durability and consistency at SS over injury prone Nomar any day. Keep in mind, Ripken won two MVPs, whereas Nomar cries that people pay more attention to Jeter than to him.

Just who is better than Nolan? And please don't say Pedro. Clemens and Johnson rank up there, and Maddux, too, but that's it for the active pitchers. As for all time, Sandy Koufax comes damn close. The problem with Ryan was he never got good offense. Put him on the mound for your Red Sox of 1975-80 and the Express would have reeled off five or six thirty win seasons. The weenies today, including Pedro, can't go more than seven innings before their arms get all tuckered out. So much for anyone ever putting up any big shutout numbers again.

By the way, didn't you notice the nice things I said about the Red Sox? You do know who I'm talking about when I say "Yaz" don't you? How about Double XX?

Ben H. Severance - 7/13/2004

I thought a Cubs fan might chime in, but as with Derek, I am saying these things tongue-in-cheek. No offense intended. Think of it as the kind of thing I might say to you at the bar just to get you going. The fact is, I think Hack Wilson is a great ballplayer, and with Rogers Hornsby now at second, the Cubs look good. Wait a minute, I'm in the wrong century, sorry. In all honesty, I felt bad for the Cubs last year in the playoffs; what a supernatural-like collapse after the fan interference. And I do respect your loyalty. The only sports team I've never wavered from is the Washington Redskins, going all the way back to Kilmer! Anyway, with Sosa in the line-up, the Cubs are always fun to watch. Three times the man surpassed sixty homers and never got a title for any of those years. Talk about unfair.

Derek Charles Catsam - 7/13/2004

Nolan Ryan is the most overrated great pitcher in the history of the game (the pitching equivalent to Cal Ripken, Jr. How's that for intentionally pissing folks off? Bring it on!). Yes, awesome strikeout and no hitter totals. But Ryan is not in the top 10 pitchers of all time, and I bet I could come up with a top 20 list from which I would be comfortable excluding the Express. Hell, there are at least three active pitchers, and maybe four, whose all time standing is higher than Ryan's.
dc

Robert Wisler - 7/13/2004

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa.
Cub fans are NOT pathetic, and am insulted by your comment. Cub fans are dedicated, loyal fans who year after year hope beyond hope that this year they will finally rid the north side of the Windy City from the horrible curse of the goat. This is an especially redicules comment from someone who admitedly doesn't even have the loyalty of choosing one team.
If you believe Cub fans are pathetic for sticking by their team, through thick and thin (mostly thin, very thin) for the last 96 years, I would have to disagree. I believe it is loyalty to a team that is rarely seen anymore. The BoSox and Cubs may not have hoisted a World Series Trophy (I believe 86 years for the BoSox, and 96 for the Cubbies), but the fans still stand by their side, regardless of how crappy of a season or seasons they may have, or how close they come. Even though I have suffered countless cardiac failers, spewn out curse words that would make George Carlin blush, and have sat jaw agape in utter amazement at what I have just witnessed, I am sure I will stand by my Cubbies, regardless.
You may call it "pathetic" or "fanatical" allegiance", I prefer to call it loyalty.

Ben H. Severance - 7/13/2004

I knew I'd get you riled up, predictable Bosox fan. Actually, I was kidding and agree that the pop psychology has no place in analyzing people from Boston. It does have its uses in understanding the pathetic Cubs' fans. At least you are devoted to one team. Instead of a particular team, I tend to follow players, such as Nolan Ryan, the greatest pitcher in history (and please don't dispute this irrefutable fact). Whether as an Angel, an Astro, or a Ranger, I loved to watch him throw. I am a big student of baseball history and love the peaceful artistry of the game. And the Red Sox certainly provide both (Yaz was always a favorite of mine as a kid, even if I didn't give hoot about Boston, and generally preferred the '70s Orioles over all other American League teams). And after reading Halberstam's Summer of '49, I think it would have been fun to see the Red Sox of the late '40s and early '50s, a team that statistically was superior to the Yanks. Incidentally, another favorite player was Mike Easler, whose most productive year was with Boston. I saw him club a homer against the Mariners when I was living in Seattle. Anyway, I just wanted you to know that while I find your "fanatical" allegiance amusing, I have immense respect for the Boston franchise.

Derek Charles Catsam - 7/13/2004

Greg --
Um, someone paying attention would note that the Red Sox are leading the season series with the Yankees this year, 6 games to 4, that we swept them in a three game seriews and took three of four before this latest debacle. Someone paying attention will also notice that Wild Card teams tend to win recent World Series. Look beyond pitching records, which as you know are actually among the weakest guages for a pitchers effectiveness, and look at the other numbers. lowe is definitely subpar, but he also has a history that suggests he'll be better. Arroyo? terrible luck. Waker? The numbers indicate that he is mucy better than a 5-5 pitcher, and in any case, I cannot remember the last time titles were decided in July!
I am going to keep the faith here.
dc

Derek Charles Catsam - 7/13/2004

Ben --
thanks for reading. But really . . .Nonsense. I am really tired of this pap psychology (yes, I meant pap, not "pop") that tries to analyze us in some inane dialectic of failure. For one things, being a sports fan is usually fungible. It is not like Boston fans have not experienced sporting success -- you've heard of the Patriots and Celtics, yes? Further, Boston fans love the Red Sox. Partly because they are almost always good, often very good. Partly because it is what you do in New England. All we want as fans is for our team to win. We don't want to hear silliness about how it will kill us if they do win, or how somehow the entire ediface will crack if it happens. Yes, we will still hate the Yankees. Yes we will still love the Red Sox. Yes, we will finally have a World series title. It will be the sweetest title any team ever won, and within days we'll be fretting about if we can win another one, but this idea that somehow winning will be bad for Sox fans --- AAArrrrrrgh!
dc

Greg Robinson - 7/13/2004

If the Red Sox are to win the World Series this year they should really start figuring out a way to get into first place. They will not be able to beat the Yankees as they have already proven time and again, this year alone. Yeah, they may get the wildcard (I doubt it however) but beating the Yankees is something they can't do. Pedro is good (only good this year, not great) but Lowe, Wakefield, Arroyo are a combined 15-20. Schilling and Pedro can't do it alone. When the Yankees trade for Randy Johnson, the Sox fate will be sealed.

Ben H. Severance - 7/13/2004

Bosox fans, like their brethren in Chicago, are subconsciously dependent on the yearly let down. Failure is ingrained in the psyche. To come tantalizingly close, but not prevail is the real baseball fix that drives the fans in Boston. What will you do, Derek, if Boston wins the World Series? You'll have nothing. No more legacy of valiant defeat. No more loving rancor toward the Yankees, who even when they lose are still seen as the better ballclub. No more references to 1918. So, talk about winning, but pray for a loss (ideally in the seventh game of the series, which is historically what Boston excells at--1946, 1967, 1975, 1986--but you know all this). I think we need to have Thome blasting a late inning game seven slam off Pedro to steal Boston's dream, once again. Or even better, Pedro walking in the winning run! Pedro...hah!